On Mon, 17 Jun 2002, Paul Bohman wrote:
As a clarification, captions made in SMIL or SAMI for media players are
inherently more legible than the captions that come second-hand through
non-web broadcasts. SMIL and SAMI captions can be as legible as any real
text on the person's computer. Captions that are a part of rebroadcasts
often end up being pixilated, blocky, and blurry.
I have two reservations about this. One is the technical one identified by
Paul.
The other is that it is unmeasurable as it gives no guideance as to what
standards might be applicable. Is it fair to claim, for example, that some
rebroadcast audio complied to the accessibility standard for Fighter Pilot
commmunication with their controllers and therefore needs no captioning?
Does this apply to a legal requirement that has been met or to some defined
requirements for ensuring accessibility?
Charles McCN